Oil & Fuel Front axle/ 30 W oil ?

[Frankm]

Thanks Everyone , i will change it to the 80W90, sounds good ,Frank From Near Erie Pa , on The Pa Ny Line , THanks !

 

[greg_g]

I'm sure that both regular oil, and synthetics have this same atribute. I'm surprised that one would be better in this than the other.

Yeah, maybe this is a case of a picture being worth a thousand words. But it's easy to demonstrate that mineral oils clearly climb better than do most synthetics. Again, it's the "slippery factor" at play.

I actually saw it with my own eyes. A guy built a couple of clear plexiglass boxes with simple nylon gear trains inside. They were run by hand crank, oil level was at the half way mark on the lower gears. There were driven gears above the oil level. One box held synthetic oil, the other held conventional. When the gear trains are turned, the mineral oil climbs the teeth of the gears that were half submerged. Then it transferred to the teeth of the upper gears that were completely above oil level. It climbed them, until gravity pulled it back into the sump. In the synthetic box, there was visibly less climb - far less oil on the upper gears. In fact, more oil reached them by means of splashing than did by climbing. Wicking by the way, is not quite the same. It's an undesired property of oil - whether at rest or in motion - like how badly it "wicks" through seals and bushings, follows wires, et cetera. Climbing obviously, is is a desired property that is precipitated by motion.

Anyway. The boxes could be used to compare syn versus syn and mineral versus mineral too. It was a interesting demonstration, one that formed the basis of why I don't advocate synthetics in new machinery of Chinese origin.

//greg//

 

[greg_g]

Thanks Everyone , i will change it to the 80W90,

Excellent Frank. Just make sure that you buy stuff that's indicated as safe for yellow metals. If it's labeled with an API rating of MT1, that's the same thing. Also look on the label for the words "non-foaming", "anti-foaming additives", or words to that effect. You don't want bubbles in your transmission and differentials.

//greg//

 

[IH3444]

Greg, I've seen the same display with the nylon gears, but for the Lucas additives for gears. The Lucas additive did help the gear oil to cling, and climb up to the top gear which the crank was attached. Never have googled Lucas to find out what's so special about there additives. HY-Tran, and the transmission-hydraulic tractor oils could also be used I'm sure. They also have the extreme pressure additive. The 75-90w quality gear oil is a safe way to go. It does puzzle me why there would be brass thrust washers in the chinese differentals, or gear boxes. Seems that even though brass has lower friction, the thrusting over time would just wear it out, or flatten it. Plus it more costly, and my understanding up to now is that the chinese tractors have a good market here due to there lower cost up front when purchased.

 

[Soundguy]

My point exactly. There's no reason to use anything other than gear oil in (most) Chinese gearboxes and differentials. I'm not sure of the exact reason, but for a while there really was a reason for concern. Gear oils marked GL4 and GL5 appeared not suitable for yellow metals. That just left GL1 (hard to find at all anymore) and MT1 (hard to find in multi-viscosity). The reason stated was as Chip just mentioned, EP additives in GL4/GL5 attacked copper/brass/bronze. Either the original labeling was incorrect, the original concerns were unfounded, or - more likely - the manufacturers are starting to reformulate the EP additives. I say this because of the recent increase in the number of GL4 and GL5 gear oils that are now marked to include the API rating of MT1

//greg//

I don't think it was an error on the lable.. i think it was a reformulation to make the oils safe across the board.

As for gl1 being hard to find?? You can get it off the shelf at any napa store.. part number 65-205 is a 5g pail of 90w gl1, and 65-201 is a 1-g bottle of 90w gl1. Tractor supply sells a 90w oil marked for ford 39-52 and it is likely a gl-3 oil, again.. safe for yelow metals.. etc.

soundguy

 

[Soundguy]

The bras is sacrificial.. designed to wear before other more expesive parts do.

soundguy

Greg, I've seen the same display with the nylon gears, but for the Lucas additives for gears. The Lucas additive did help the gear oil to cling, and climb up to the top gear which the crank was attached. Never have googled Lucas to find out what's so special about there additives. HY-Tran, and the transmission-hydraulic tractor oils could also be used I'm sure. They also have the extreme pressure additive. The 75-90w quality gear oil is a safe way to go. It does puzzle me why there would be brass thrust washers in the chinese differentals, or gear boxes. Seems that even though brass has lower friction, the thrusting over time would just wear it out, or flatten it. Plus it more costly, and my understanding up to now is that the chinese tractors have a good market here due to there lower cost up front when purchased.

 

[IH3444]

Soundguy, it just seems that wear causes increased tolerances between gears, hence less gear tooth contact, and becomes a downward sprial. More clearance, less contact, more wear.

 

[Soundguy]

So you are arguing with all the mechanical engineers that still use this method then?

soundguy

 

[greg_g]

As for gl1 being hard to find?? You can get it off the shelf at any napa store..

Yes. My point however, was that GL1/MT1 is rare in multi-viscosity formulation. That's ok for implement transmissions, I guess. I do use 140W - in my rotary cutters, finish mower, spreader, etc. But my tractors are used 12 months of the year. As such, I have an ongoing need for multi-viscosity gear oil. That's why I was glad to see GL5s starting to tack on the MT1 rating.

//greg//

 

[Soundguy]

Yes. My point however, was that GL1/MT1 is rare in multi-viscosity formulation. That's ok for implement transmissions, I guess. I do use 140W - in my rotary cutters, finish mower, spreader, etc. But my tractors are used 12 months of the year. As such, I have an ongoing need for multi-viscosity gear oil. That's why I was glad to see GL5s starting to tack on the MT1 rating.

//greg//

sorry, I was working off the following quote for post # 19 when I wrote that:

That just left GL1 (hard to find at all anymore) and MT1 (hard to find in multi-viscosity).

I read that as two seperate statements:

GL1 is hard to find at all --AND-- MT1 was hard to find in multi-vis.


soundguy

 

[IH3444]

"So you are arguing with all the mechanical engineers that still use this method then?"

No not at all. The rear differenial of my small case 310 bulldozer uses steel thrust washers, and shims. Guess it is considerated heavy duty, whereas the chinese tractors are for lighter duty? It also recommends straight 75-90w gear oil. Just looks to me that brass would wear and give more readily than steel thrust washers. Rob stated that his KAMA55 didn't have any yellow metal in the front bevel drive gears of his tractor. I guess the transmissions don't take the heavy loads that the final drives do. The final drives in my dozer are large ball bearings, and drive gears. No brass there either....

 

[Soundguy]

I would expect final drives and bull gear to really take a beating.

As for brass on soft chinese steel.. I'd rather have some thrust washers to repalce.. vs other worn steel components..

soundguy

 

[Marc L.]

Good day to all,

80W-90 is probably the best oil for your tranny. You just need to replace it every 9 months or less (due to oxidation of EP additives). It would make sense to replace it this often due to the wear of the gears and brass spacers(who wants the metal filings going around in a transmision?). 80W-90 will also be thicker at the bottom of the transmission, not by a lot but it helps trapping all the muck awy from the gears and bearings.

Synthetic L/O would also give the same good lubrication for probably longer (does not oxidize as fast) and to me it is a problem in itself. By keeping the oil longer, you accumulate more muck in the bottom. Since there is no filters on these transmission, we need to flush the assembly more often. At this point, I find it too expensive for the syn L/O.


Marc